• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

*** AMD "Zen" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***

Uriel said:
The CPU benchmarks at GameGPU (they normally include a CPU section for each game) benchmarks are starting to show otherwise most of the time. A fast 4 thread+ CPU is often 'enough' to make all recent games playable but looking at the top of the charts there's been a shift in favour of more cores / threads.

i7s consistently outperform i5s. AMD octacore FXs are often finding themselves competitive with and sometimes beating i5s that they couldn't have got near a few years ago. There is a transition going on towards more efficiently threaded games and it looks to me like Ryzen has turned up at just the right time to take advantage.
Click to expand...


See i am getting really confused with all this "not many games use multi core" talk. I went from 4 core to 6 core and have always noticed the games i play using all the cores. Unless i am missing something here.

Frostbite engine loves more cores so that gives current games i play an advantage of more cores.

BF4, Battlefront, BF1

Other games i play that have taken advantage of more cores.

Doom (Vulkcan), GTAV, The Division (DX12), Rise of the Tomb Raider (DX12), Hitman (Dx12)
 
labbby said:
Please tell me these games you play that only use single core ?

im really confused with the games i play these days, i am guessing openhardwaremonitor is lying to me every time i am gaming.
Click to expand...

Uriel said:
The CPU benchmarks at GameGPU (they normally include a CPU section for each game) benchmarks are starting to show otherwise most of the time. A fast 4 thread+ CPU is often 'enough' to make all recent games playable but looking at the top of the charts there's been a shift in favour of more cores / threads.

i7s consistently outperform i5s. AMD octacore FXs are often finding themselves competitive with and sometimes beating i5s that they couldn't have got near a few years ago. There is a transition going on towards more efficiently threaded games and it looks to me like Ryzen has turned up at just the right time to take advantage.
Click to expand...

You can't win with some - I posted a picture from the Digital Foundry review of the Core i7 7700K showing how their own review suite showed how the Core i7 CPUs were better than the Core i5 CPUs,and that website is part of Eurogamer,a GAMING website. They ignore the consoles have 8 cores.

They ignore that the Ryzen quad core and six core SKUs look like they will massively undercut the Intel ones,and IF AMD can hit at least Haswell level IPC(or better),it does mean Intel will need to drop prices.
I am sure on forums people will try to justify spending £250 to £350 on a Intel quad core,so they will keep showing off Super PI and FS X results,and they are on purpose doing it since,it means in a few years time they can talk of an upgrade path to a six core Intel consumer desktop CPU with a new motherboard instead of a simple drop in upgrade.

I made that list earlier - six and eight cores are not important since Intel lacks them on a consumer platform. Expect when Intel Coffee Lake is released,suddenly the six core SKU will be the best thing for gaming!! ;)
 
Last edited:
Remember,a few weeks ago we had this discussion about single core performance - in certain games which are bottlenecked it does not mean magically you will get better performance with MOAR MHZ even on Intel. An example is PS2 - even a fellow forum member on here mentioned that they upgraded from an overclocked SB Core i7 to an overclocked Skylake Core i7 and the game still runs a bit meh during intensive scenes. This is why the obsession about MOAR MHZ does not really work with a number of games based on older engines as throwing hardware at them really is a money pit.

Its one thing when you have a massive discrepancy in single core performance,but once it is within 20% or so,it makes less difference.

Remember all the arguing about the Phenom II X4 and the Core2 quad. Technically the former had the edge when overclocked but realistically none of them have lasted longer than each other,and the Phenom II X4 tended to be cheaper too.

Most people are GPU limited,so that money saved on the CPU is better spent on a graphics card!!
 
Although I have built many Intel boxes to order, I have mainly used AMD at home. Now there is a huge choice of what to buy and for what purpose. Most people would be suited with a 4.0GHz Broadwell/Haswell level IPC CPU I would expect and That is what I need. I use mainly productivity software with light gaming on an RX470 GPU.
At least summer is in the offing and I can dispense with my FX9590 warming my feet. Next winter though may need a heater. I am waiting on an investment coming home before I decide which one to go for.
 
labbby said:
See i am getting really confused with all this "not many games use multi core" talk. I went from 4 core to 6 core and have always noticed the games i play using all the cores. Unless i am missing something here.)
Click to expand...

That is just your windows scheduler spreading the load around. What is really the issue here is using all cores equally up until all reach 100% utilization. You will be seeing large variations between them going up/down all the time but whilst one is going down others are going up. You need all to go up at the same time and down together too.
 
Erik13 said:
What is Ryzen 5 ?
Click to expand...

The 4C/8T and 6C/12T parts. They will be targeting Intel Core i5 pricing.

Leaks hint that a 4C/8T unlocked part with 3.9GHZ boost clocks/probably 4.0GHZ XFR clocks at least is targeting the locked Core i5 7500/7600.

Edit!!

Looked at the leak again - the top 4C/8T pricing is meant to be Core i5 7500 level and the lowest end 6C/12T SKU is meant to be Core i5 7600 level.

Hopefully this will be true and AMD has at least Haswell level IPC in games.
 
MDPlatts said:
That is just your windows scheduler spreading the load around. What is really the issue here is using all cores equally up until all reach 100% utilization. You will be seeing large variations between them going up/down all the time but whilst one is going down others are going up. You need all to go up at the same time and down together too.
Click to expand...


Yep i should have explained i knew that, BF1 they do indeed go up and down at the same time the same with doom and so on. I haven't seen random spikes and decreases across the cores in a long time.

A massive thing i Noticed with BF1 when it comes from going from a 4c to 6c is how much faster the game renders objects at distance. On the 4c i would get pop in objects all the time but with 6c it doesn't happen that often at all.

Is this core argument purely on the extra fps games get or overall quality ?
 
8 Pack said:
I know this lot on here don't know what they want... Well they do everything.. High cores, Ht or similar, great ipc, great single core,strong Imc, many pcx lanes, high oc, cool running, great nvme and storage support native and cheap as chips!! With haribo in every delivery... Leave the last one to us...
Click to expand...

I think you're out of touch with what people want TBH.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom